League of Legends Wiki:Request for Adminship/Denevir
I thought becoming a mod would allow me to clean up everything. Turns out I'm still finding brick walls to jump over -_- -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) : House is not going to clean itself, y'know? -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) :: It would appear my intent is either unclear or is being understood as a coup, so here goes: you know when you find a red link and you want to fix it, only to find the 'edit' button isn't there, you type '?action=edit', and are met with 'you do not have permission to edit this page'? That's why I'm here. That's it. No 'new world order', no 'ethnic cleansing', no nothing: just a janitor that found a locked door under which some rats scuttled from, and wants to know what's going in that room. -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) Questions * What more is it you want to do? What (walls) are limiting you still, even though you've received mod powers? ** Those ancient user talk pages and some message walls harbor redirects and red links I cannot get to, only admins. Ergo, I am forced to request admin rights in order to be as thorough as possible. -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * I'd have to talk to the other admins/crats but we used to have this system in place with other users where they had the admin rank but only were allowed (through trust, basically) to use the rights they needed to fulfill their role (usually code monkeys who needed it to edit mediawiki). Would such a thing be something you'd be interested in (having admin but only using the permissions you need to delete redirects/red links hidden behind old/archived pages)? 03:32, April 30, 2017 (UTC) ** That is the only purpose of this request: to edit what I cannot access at present. This option seems really nice (after all, some-I-will-not-name would rather raise more brick walls just to spite me) -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * I've been less active on here as I've wanted to be in the past few months, so my main question is this: have there been recorded instances of Denevir abusing their privileges and mod rights, or otherwise exerting their given authority unfairly? From what I understand, this request is simply to gain edit access to otherwise inaccessible pages, but would also carry the power to godmode entire portions of the wiki. If Denevir's arguments have thus far limited themselves to heated text exchanges, I'd be fine with supporting their adminship, as their contribution record to this wiki is extensive. --Willbachbakal (talk) 07:26, May 3, 2017 (UTC) ** Adding to the above, my other question would be: what so far have been the major conflicts involving Denevir? As a user who has a) made controversial and relatively large-scale changes to the mainspace in the past, b) argued with other users over questions of aesthetics and parsimony, and c) butted heads with leadership here on several occasions, I'd be supportive of Denevir if those conflicts were mostly just strong personalities not being nice to each other, but if this were more along the lines of them trying to turn the wiki into their personal play space, rather than a public database designed for the end user, I'd be less so inclined. --Willbachbakal (talk) 07:37, May 3, 2017 (UTC) *** My opposition got offended because a) I don't condone hoarding, b) I am brief, efficient, and thorough (if you need a wall of text to say that which can be summarized in a single sentence, well... ) and c) I must've mopped the floor with them unknowingly because that's usually why the propaganda machine ('everything is shit, everything must go' aka a deliberate misinterpretation of my humble housekeeping) starts running (easier to move hell, heaven, and earth to sully the adversary's name than to come up with an objectively superior proposal) I am always willing to negotiate, but that doesn't mean the one who copypastes everything on top of my hours' worth of effort gets a pat on the back, especially when the reason for doing so boils down to temper tantrum a la Eric Cartman. ***: Make no mistake, if I could access those pages without having to be judged on adulterated 'evidence', I wouldn't be here in the first place. -- Denevir (talk) 07:59, May 3, 2017 (UTC) *** Denevir quite accurately depicted the how the events play out. Some specific examples would be some instances involving Tylobic: like this and this. The most recent issue being with what happened to the Cooldown reduction page, which is part of what spurred Teh's wrath. I think I quite accurately depicted the issue, which is that Denevir comes off as a jerk. As we all know there is a policy directly against jerks that we have--albeit it's only in the Discussion Policy. These issues never been intentional as far as I've seen, which is why it's limited to being a jerk and not the more demeaning one: dick. If I had to say, it all stems from a lack of communication and collaboration as some projects that Denevir might consider small scale are actually large scale changes and, as he said before, screws over other people unknowingly. 09:27, May 3, 2017 (UTC) ***: Is it really 'being a jerk' when you do what you do for the end user first, yourself second? I could go back and revert Cooldown reduction, but that is not only non-profitable but also backwards. User:GreenMoriyama offered to come up with yet another version (still WIP) so I'm waiting to check it out and then reassess (every time my efforts are reverted it means I gotta try harder and step up my editing game - else it's like I learned nothing - while remaining efficient) ***: It would actually be other way around: I'll introduce you to Summoner icon's new architecture, which I came up with myself. The previous one could be described as inefficient and Frankenstein-y. Simply used tabbers, went on a link hunt (long one given the antiquity of most icons) checked and rechecked the linking, some formatting to pretty the lady up, BOOM. This is simply one example to illustrate I do what I do for the end user first, myself second (I got a thing for order, is all) Another example would be that I'd love to have Template:Mi1-7 used for every mastery link in existence as of right now, but some are hidden on those ancient, inaccessible pages. And some red links, too. -- Denevir (talk) 07:00, May 5, 2017 (UTC) **** A jerk is not mainly defined by what they do. A jerk is defined by how suddenly they do it. It's quite equivalent to the literal usage of the word, sudden spasm. Slowly extending one's arms as far as they can go is called a stretch. Quickly extending one's arms as far as they can go is called a jerk. Slowly discussing a project with other administrators and moderators before implementing a project is called a collaborative effort. Quickly spitting out iterations of a project and revising as you go is apparently called a jerk doing whatever the hell he wants. The definition of a jerk is not dependent on the consideration of the end user, the definition of a dick is. ****: I have no animosity towards jerks, it is quite the opposite. I look at jerks in a very positive light as typically jerks are people who are trying to do something good but are constantly criticised for something as small as how suddenly they are doing things. In fact, I became friends with a gigantic jerk, Ntoulinho who I have indeed said in his face that he is a jerk. ****: This is something I am stating very outwardly now as I have seen a great many conflicts that occurred due to jerks. In fact I have seen an administrator fall from glory due to a scrapped large scale project, that was implemented without discussion. Well, rather from the later brash change that occurred without patience even after discussion. Reading how hard you work on your projects only cements this fear as I am positive that this person fell due to the great waves of sadness from having a selfless project completely denied. 13:45, May 5, 2017 (UTC) ***** Now I'm curious as to who this guy was, what was he doing, and what happened to him? O_O -- Denevir (talk) 20:55, May 5, 2017 (UTC) * Shouldn't there essentially be a "case" section here? I've only seen him cleaning up, but there's been links throughout here that should be presented and considered - I've been asked to vote, but when I only have half the information, that's essentially what my vote counts for. Treating this as a court case there's information that should be presented that aren't. I'm getting less confident about my vote due to his behaviour (coming from this guy who just got a warning - ain't even mad; I got the presence of mind to know I was one). Not in that I think he's abused his authority - but because in the case the he does, I wouldn't want to deal with him. Nazareadain (talk) 14:19, May 5, 2017 (UTC) I'm like grandpa trying to call the kids with the remote control. ** Indeed, there really should. However, my god is it hell trying to find information about Denevir. Like if you think I'm trying to sabotage you Denevir, even though I am supporting you which would be utterly contradictory, the only reason why I am posting this negative information is because it was the second easiest thing to find about you. The first obviously being the legion of files and formatting. Like here is how I figured out some of the information: User:Denevir > Contributions > Block Log > Contributions > *insert month and year* > #older500. Fortunately, I finally figured out how to find all the times he does talk on message walls by slapping "Message Wall" on that Namespace drop down box and clicking that "Associated Namespace" checkbox. You can find a lot of collaborative discussion through this. 14:42, May 5, 2017 (UTC) *** @ User:Double Slap: It's ok, I suspect no ill intent. I tend to keep my message wall cleared to avoid cluttering, is all. @ Nazareadain: I have no intention of committing abuse of authority (not profitable, counterproductive, and having been on the receiving end don't exactly make it come across as a beneficial prospect, either for the wiki or myself) -- Denevir (talk) 20:08, May 5, 2017 (UTC) **** I'm convinced you'll not do anything you'll find as a breach of authority. I'm not convinced you'll not veto something out of convenience rather explain yourself, which it basically is. Half the links you're not explaining yourself, you're explaining to the person how they're wrong. Subtle difference, but anyone else coming across the edit war will have no better understanding of the situation, but will have to filter through a lot of ad hominem. I prefer my jabs to be quick when I'm actually explaining something. the 90-10 ratio actually going in favour of the explaining, not calling someone a triggered tumblrina or whatever stock hip-with-the-kids, and totally not cringy insults you can grab off of a top 10 list of modern insults made by a detached old-media journalist who's in his midlife crisis. .... I still also do have moments where I tell someone they're the reason their parents aren't together anymore, but I neither have authority nor am asking for it; you, however, will have to deal with people, so public appearance matters. Otherwise you'll just be met with pre-emptive hostility from reputation alone - which, btw, affects more than just you. Nazareadain (talk) 01:50, May 6, 2017 (UTC) ***** Using the words 'triggered tumblrina' is the last resort, when even after all the explaining they refuse to stop swimming in the Nile's waters and they're splashing all over the place and disturbing the ever scarce peace there is. Simple terms that everyone and their dog understand: no fancy words because they don't cut to the chase. I'm always willing to explain why I did what I did, but it's also required of the explained to not stoop to the level of... well... a triggered tumblrina... when addressing the explainer (all the above aside, if a wiki is ruled by a popularity contest rather than merits... your description of insults tells me you yourself know and understand where I'm going with all this) -- Denevir (talk) 03:04, May 6, 2017 (UTC) ****** I don't think people should make it personal if someone edits what they've been working on, since it's the state of the site and not their emotions that matter. However, I think this'll explain itself, but I'd like you to define those "merits" Nazareadain (talk) 03:33, May 6, 2017 (UTC) ******* You know, what one's accomplished in the name of something greater than their personal gain. I could be playing videogames instead of coming up with a new structural architecture for Summoner icon, or making sure Champion ability isn't a clusterfucked Frankenstein like it was before. Cooldown reduction was to be yet another masterpiece, but compulsive hoarding and sabotage got in the way of yet another milestone (that is now on hold given all those developments - currently waiting for a chance to raise the bar yet again - that page doesn't deserve its current state) -- Denevir (talk) 04:12, May 6, 2017 (UTC) * Don't mind me, just my curiosity kicking: if I told y'all Ninjamask is the one that actually deletes (and will still delete) the stuff I just request to be deleted, would that get you to relax a bit? ** That would be an issue on Ninjamask's end. However, he is the one who does the active deleting, and from I'm understanding, you are the one "tasked" with marking what should be deleted, either from the article being actual junk or an inefficient part of the traffic cycle. Saying that I'm already relaxed may not be convincing, but I wouldn't say this claim clears some of the other's concerns, as it only place questions on what Ninjamask is doing if he isn't monitoring what is being deleted. Voting Support * Some people for god knows what reason don't seem to like the idea of giving a dedicated janitor the tools he requires. But I say give him a firearm if he deems shooting at the garbage more efficient than sweeping it. ** They seem to be scared I might drive-by the entire wiki or some shit, but the truth is it's not me who decided what goes away and what stays: that'd be Ninjamask. And I have no intention of betraying his trust. -- Denevir (talk) 10:27, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * So far he has been a respectable editor that had nothing but the best interests in heart for the wiki. Sometimes those best interests have made him clash with people who are not open to change, but overall he is a kind person (His relative behavior when it comes to rules is not anything different from anyone on the wiki, just depends on what ladder of power you sit on when it comes to interpretation of said rules). This wiki is in a desperate need to hold on to its best active editors as it can, and he has proven time and time again that he is more and capable of updating and putting new life to the wiki and its pages. I say give him a chance, a chance you rarely give to editors these days fow who knows what reasons. Also if he abuses his powers as an admin, everyone in the wiki needs to know about the situation so that all of us can judge what is the best course of action (not just a few admins with their own opinions). Only then when we reach a modest consensus can we actually take those rights from him, otherwise I see no reason not to try and open up to new possibilities. --Tesla Effect (talk) 12:10, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * Denevir still abides by the conditions placed when being stated as a moderator, which extends to his ability to be an administrator in my support. Although nothing has changed when he is applying for administrator now, I would highly recommend the application of what NeonSpotlight stated. As a moderator, it's fine for him to be given that title on his own. However, as an administrator, the restriction to only editing should ease some fears of what may occur when dealing with vandals. This is definitely a case where a whole new role should open up for an individual case. 18:08, May 1, 2017 (UTC) * I haven't seen him do anything but what he's said he's been doing; cleaning up the place whether it's redirections, categorizations, or just rephrasing awkward wording or cutting it down. Some of the stuff I don't notice myself until he's done it, but I've not argued with the results, either. I can't recall seeing anything that I'd want to undo, so given all the evidence in action, and how he's even been putting in the effort, I see no reason not to, barring paranoid hypotheticals - which I wouldn't even bother weighing against evidence, mind you. The zealous deletions I read about here, I'm not aware of, though. At least nothing I'd classify as such. -- Nazareadain (talk) 14:21, May 5, 2017 (UTC) * Has my tentative support for what that's worth. I've seen him making tons of edits, nothing disastrous has happened yet. I've had no interaction with Denevir during my time on the wiki, so I can't vouch for his personality, hence the tentative. LivesByProxy (talk) 09:37, May 3, 2017 (UTC) Neutral * I find myself willing to put up Denevir for the position if he were to uphold the idea NeonSpotlight proposed: he will receive privileges, but he will not be considered as an admin and not use his power as such, as he remains as a mod. However, there are a few aspects as to why I neither support or oppose him here. Denevir is a dedicated individual who wants to get those "piece of trash" that may not always be trash out into the dumpster. He may let loose at time, causing rifts among other wikians who do not like him, but it does not change he places a lot of time into tidying up the wikia. However, that one wiki can be an issue, even when there is good intention. Us other admins need to keep him in check, and giving him more rights can be even more disturbing. There is also the fact that he hasn't been a mod for long; I believe even if there is effort, time should be taken before someone attempts to rise up the privileges. It is a drowning sensation that you need to follow procedures, but to avoid certain issues, time should be given. I understand others have had bitter experience when talking with Denevir, but I've found it that it is possible to come to a compromise even for individuals that seem to be rather selfish. Nonetheless, the time is not now to given him any higher privileges; if he needs access to items only admins can access, for the while he needs to ask favors to such admins. ** You really need to let go of speaking in walls of text, lest you run the risk of saying nothing at all. That aside, what 'procedures'? What 'philosophy'? Wait for someone else to do the things you don't want to do or don't give a fuck about doing even though no one else will? That someone is right here addressing you. No offense, but you can wait if you want. I'd rather DO. Words are gone with the wind. -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) *** I would like to deliberate on how this wall of text is "nothing at all," but that is up to you to think as such. Even if be you are what could be the janitor of this wiki, I personally have had limited interaction with you. Regardless of the positive impression I have of you, I'm simply keeping to the "wait for two months before ranking up" mentality, which would be in about a few weeks. You can ask for trust, but as you can tell, some of us disagree with you, some of us agree, and those like myself are still on the fence due to our own reasons. * If the tools he want can't be given without the admin role, I guess I'm for Denevir, but the amount of power shouldn't be underestimated, thus will require a stronger surveillance from Bureaucrats, but Teh is and doesn't get along with Denevir at all... So I think it would be nice to reflect on the possibility that Ninjamask and NeonSpotlight would need to watch over Denevir. Also, I agree with the fact that Denevir was elected moderator not enough time ago to be considered as an administrator, and practically everything Green Moriyama said. Plus, the apply is pretty empty. Sincerly yours, . ** Ninjamask and I already have a partnership of sorts. I haven't interacted with NeonSpotlight much, but his proposal above sounds very nice (helps avoid any sensitivities getting hurt, if they do for whatever reason) -- Denevir (talk) 13:06, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * :: I like your ambitions to get rid of redlinks and doing some other tedious stuff, but sometimes you are a bit to fast on the "what should be deleted"-part. But you are learning. :: What I dislike is your clean message wall. Because no one can see how you moderate problems. :: -- Ninjamask (talk) 08:56, May 11, 2017 (UTC) ::* I only intend to help (that is why you sir are the one who ultimately deletes :3 ) About the message wall thingy... that's just cleanliness compulsion on my part. -- Denevir (talk) 15:44, May 11, 2017 (UTC) * Though I'm not as active on the Wiki I use to be an admin and moderator on many others and I would understand the leash of admin duties, I believe that not an admin position would be a good idea but more of a cleanup duty. Focus on the pages and not the community side. It would help the wiki a lot. –[[User:Tayzer|'Tayzer']],[[User_talk:Tayzer|'The taser that rocks']] 00:54, May 15, 2017 (UTC) ** Only one offer describing something like this, and it was denied because it would seem a clean house is not a priority (gotta wonder what is, then) -- Denevir (talk) 01:56, May 15, 2017 (UTC) Oppose * To summarize my understanding of Denevir's wiki philosophy, "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." These are not constructive principles for someone working to improve the wiki. Time and again, Denevir has taken it upon themselves to revise pages, gutting wide swathes of content in the name of housekeeping, deleting what they deemed to be a bunch of useless bytes. I do not believe that this zealous deletionist philosophy works to the benefit of the League of Legends Wiki. In interacting with other editors, Denevir values their own opinion on doing things high above those of others, existing procedural guidelines, and considerations for the end user (this one is literally why we're here, people). Denevir's self-righteous hostility regarding wiki hierarchy as witnessed in their introduction puts them at odds with myself and other editors, and will only continue to do so as they execute their personal crusade against the waste and excesses of the monarchy First and Second Estates bourgeois capitalists pretty much every editor who contributed to the page before them. Elevating them to administrator won't make disagreements just go away. For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose Denevir's nomination. 05:46, April 30, 2017 (UTC) ** Nice deliberate misinterpretation to make me seem like public enemy numero uno and paint you like the poor victim when the truth is anything but. Guess owning up is out of the question, then (in case you're willingly 'not sure what I'm talking about' again: are you really THAT threatened by a janitor pleb?) -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) *** There are some points I disagree on with you, Teh. First, about the fact that Denevir would "values their own opinion", I think that you refer to the CDR page "argue" you had; personally I felt like you were enforcing your work method (putting everything that need changes into a text pile), which isn't suitable for Denevir, I guess he would prefer to improve, fix and replace, rather than starting from nothing or a text pile. And thus, the argue gone wrong and you both got angry. For the "Everything is shit, and everything must go." I sincerely think that it was said in anger, instead of lucidity. Plus, I also felt like you were more ordering the work than asking it, which probably triggered Denevir's angriness as well. For the other points, I don't know enough to argue nor to have a good opinion. Anyways, if you both aim for the completion of the wiki, you should try to get along, rather than clashing. Sincerely yours, . * I may seem to have relatively poor insight into the matter, but I think Denevir has showcased poor reactions to even neutral comments, and while having nothing personal against Denevir, I must argue against his promotion to admin. While Denevir seems to be otherwise fine, the sheer drive (and, as written above, lack of lucidity) I associate with Denevir means he's ultimately a poor fit for the position of admin, as admins need to be less opinionated and more able to communicate without entering some sort of outward conflict. --PS ** You're going to make the brick wall taller without having all the data at hand? Nothing personal either, but that's what's called 'being part of the problem': what you call 'poor reactions', 'lack of lucidity', 'opinionated', 'poor fit', etc (from 'poor insight' as you call it - your words, not mine) can be translated to 'it's always easier to get offended than to step up and own up' (I have a rule, you see: don't disrespect unless disrespected first - guess what happened?) We wouldn't be having this conversation if certain individuals understood 'X is Y because Z, alpha, beta, gamma, etc.' =/= 'X is Y because I say so'. In short, you're barking at the wrong tree. -- Denevir (talk) 22:13, April 30, 2017 (UTC) *** Remember what I was saying about wantonly entering outward conflict? Also, I did not disrespect you, so please don't bring that up. I'd rather see you as a janitor than one of the guys in charge, at least until you cool your jets a little. -- PS **** Don't worry, my jets are cool (wish I could say the same about others') I just want to do my housekeeping but I cannot because reasons (if there are any) which leads to where we are right now. The disrespect bit wasn't about you yourself (sorry for that misunderstanding) but I'm not sure where you're getting the 'conflict' part from. I'm just clarifying that passing judgement without having all the data is not only inefficient but also counterproductive. The ones in charge can stay there for all I care, I simply would like to stop running into locked doors. -- Denevir (talk) 09:12, May 1, 2017 (UTC) * After reading through everything here, most specifically Denevir's responses, I can't agree with him having significant power at all, much less admin rights. I believe it is crystal clear that he does not know how to properly interact with others, and should thus not hold a position over them, even if he can do a job "well" (according to himself and some others). Putting aside whether he's necessarily usually wrong in arguments, he does not conduct himself in a manner befitting of a position of power. If he wants it, he should learn to treat others with respect even when they don't treat him with respect. Further: there will always be disagreements. Even if he may think that a matter is a simple "2+2 = 4", I do not believe, from his attitude so thoroughly displayed here, that he is mature enough to know when that really is (whether it involves another person or not). Maybe someday, but not now. *: As for an actual experience, I myself have had a runes analysis file page gutted empty and marked for deletion by Denevir, then removed (by Ninjamask, I believe) without any discussion, despite my posting in Category talk:Candidates for deletion#Rune Spreadsheet. Shouldn't we be encouraging contributions more so than heavy-handedly deleting? He's made it pretty clear that he believes he knows better than everyone else whether things should stay or go. If he wants to know where ideas like in his comment: "the propaganda machine ('everything is shit, everything must go' aka a deliberate misinterpretation of my humble housekeeping)" come from, then perhaps he should read what he writes, and--in my experience, at least--look at what he deletes, and consider the contributors. For the record, I'm not looking to punish him or whatever; I have a backup the file. The real issues are his general outlook, and his attitude toward others. *: Perhaps all that seems to have little to do with the declared reason for wishing to have upgraded rights, but this is admin we're talking about (in some form, and at least in name). If it's difficult to trust him with his current powers, why is more a good idea? I honestly don't believe he will intend to do something wrong (though not caring is a close cousin to deliberate), but once he finds a "legitimate" excuse, the line may blur. It's also a way of getting one's foot in the door, making future "compromises"/promotions significantly easier, without being the kind of person (much more) befitting the position. It would be an irresponsible move, in my eyes. All that said, I don't want to undermine any good work he has done--whatever did not damage anything in the process--but it's harder to tell when good things disappear than it is when bad things appear, and I can't say I have any faith in him from what I have seen, including the threads shared by Double Slap (regardless of how Tylobic behaved). -- StrikerX22 ** (Slow clap) No offense, but you just demonstrated everything I have posited about my opposition's MO all across this thread and in one nicely wrapped package. Did you actually read 'everything'? Seems you missed the part where Ninjamask is the one that actually deletes while I simply give the signal (which is why your file didn't actually go away - sorry about that, the thing was found in , didn't even have a thumbnail, and opening it was not possible - my bad on that one) Do please refrain from veiled, elegantly phrased ad hominems, please (it is crystal clear that - and no offense to Poisonshark either - you're passing judgement without all the actual data and are fueling the very real propaganda machine that only those who are afraid of getting very exposed fuel) **: Neverminding that, boy I didn't know janitors where seen as something out of a Stephen King novel (no need to be scared... unless you are a compulsive hoarder - check this out: before I started my housekeeping, you were lucky if managed to reach the letter E, while now it reaches somewhat into the letter H; 4500+ redirects according to Teh, and I can assure you that 90% of those are old clutter left from years gone by) **: As closure, I'm giving you a friendly tip, free of charge: please refrain from using the word 'should' ( % of the time it translates to 'my way or the highway because I say so' - this is firsthand from experience) assess everything equally (respect is earned, not demanded - if you go about demeaning others for the lulz, it's no one's fault but your own if you indirectly ask to be treated accordingly) and last but not least, words are gone with the wind, only action is a true reflection of an individual (mine have the good of the wiki in mind, wiwwle feewings getting hurt is just collateral damage - if you want to parley, let's, but cast the first stone out of boredom and you will be given a boulder not even Indiana Jones can outrun in return, all because you indirectly asked for it) Cheers. -- Denevir (talk) 21:46, May 5, 2017 (UTC) * After talking to Teh and Ninja about it I don't think using the restricted admin position that I originally proposed is a good idea in this case or as a general option going forward for the wiki. With this in mind, I'm going to have to give this nomination an oppose vote. I don't think Denevir has any real need for the rights other than the self satisfaction of his red link hunt (in which his system with Ninja seems to be working just fine). Administrator is not a role to be given out as some sort of reward for being a dedicated/driven editor, there's a lot more to it than that and this is something that quite a few users are not considering in this discussion. 23:56, May 10, 2017 (UTC) ** Self satisfaction? I'm doing everyone a favor. Nobody is going to fix those links: NOBODY. If is this is how it's going to go down, at least do me the kindness of making sure I can edit those ancient pages nobody gives a shit about and barely anyone knows they exist (Ninjamask only deletes so no one gets triggered in case anything has to be undeleted - I fix years' worth of negligence, which has allowed me to thrive up to this point) because I'm tired of seeing both red links and redirects never going below 1000. Don't worry about a coup or anything: I give no fucks about that, you fellas can carry on with whatever it is you do, but for the love of whatever deity the one currently this believes in, don't troll the janitor cleaning for free by locking doors because arbitrary reasons. -- Denevir (talk) 00:17, May 11, 2017 (UTC) Comments * I never have supported you for your attitude on this matter, Denevir. I merely support you for your ability. The truth of the matter is that your actions are unfounded. Your reasoning is too flexible for anyone to agree with. To be quite blunt, Denevir is the jerk of editing. Edit before stating reason. Insert dick before getting permission. You must have reasons for whatever you do. So if you do have reasons, you are obligated to list these reasons. Making up a reason for when the time comes is something a jerk would do. If you read the policies, you can clearly see Don't be a jerk under the discussion policy--which you can see is why I was harping on you last time. Stop being a little bitch and complaining when someone points out your faults when you obviously haven't even stated what exactly you are even doing. If you really think this isn't a problem, think of all of those confrontations with Tylobic. If you don't list your premises and logically reason out how they end up to your actions, you can expect everyone who confronts you to believe that you legitimately think that "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." 18:44, May 1, 2017 (UTC) ** First, just a quick question born out of observation and experience: if you already planned, calculated, and accounted for most (if not all) before editing, then edit, and in case someone gets offended, you explain why you did what you did, and they get offended and revert everything out of a temper tantrum even though your editing went in-depth and got rid of a bunch of artificial filling that was there only to... well... fill... who's the actual 'jerk' with 'unfounded actions' and 'on-the-fly reasons' then? Three words: abuse of authority (which I do not have) Second, "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." is the product of what I call 'it's easier to get offended than to step up your game and own up'. I went out of way and spend many hours trying to come up with a way of merging cooldown and cooldown reduction (I totally got you meant this one) such that the most important info remains while getting rid of all the rest (the page is called 'cooldown reduction' not 'list of abilities with built-in CDR', after all) but someone got offended, called it 'gutting' (ha) and copypasted everything on top again. Who's the 'little bitch' then? A tip: that who doesn't care for the ACTUAL good of the wiki (neglect is the most obvious symptom of this) Third, if there is one 'fault' I might have, it's that I am way too efficient for some to process (hence the 'confrontations') and that I find 'opinions' and 'arguments' inefficient/counterproductive/non-profitable/worthless (2 + 2 = 4 is not negotiable, neither are the laws of physics / nature) My methods are less 'insert dick before getting permission' and more like 'dear god, so many cobwebs, let's get the duster' (never found it curious how I seem to be one of the few - if not the only one - whose actions are questioned at every turn even though the end result turned out to be the objectively superior alternative?) -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) *** (Clap clap) Bravo, for making your point on a single instance. However do you also know what is not negotiable? The laws of logic, which oh hot damn comes from speech and ARGUMENTS. That kind of "easier to get offended, than to own up and get better" mentality is the one that people who favor pollution have than people who are trying to clean up the shit. It's a shame because that's the entire premise of your cause. ***: What you think is useless is actually the very thing you need to break these walls: a strong sense of organization. The strongest form of this organization is something called deductive reasoning. The usage of premises and implications to prove a conclusion. This form of reasoning is non-negotiable to the level that literally all of the laws of physics/nature and even 2 + 2 = 4 is based on this deductive reasoning. Here is an example of a criteria you could make for your changes: "This section refers to material no longer in the game. If something refers to material no longer in the game, it is obsolete. This section is something, therefore this section is obsolete." From there you can make your actions based on what is obsolete and it cannot be argued so long as your premises are true. ***: This is the very logic that is used that keeps theorems together and if you refer people to these criterias you made for your changes, then literally nobody can argue with you so long as they cannot argue that your criteria is false. I wasn't even talking about the CDR incident, because why think in instances when you can deal with what can happen for all cases? 20:42, May 1, 2017 (UTC) **** Right, you mean 'argument' as in 'X suspected of being Y, let's find out'. I meant 'argument' as in '"A: X is Y because I say so" "B: No, X is Z because I say so (insert dick sizing contest)' It's the latter that's inefficient/counterproductive/non-profitable/worthless and pollutes everything it touches (adulterating evidence to push an agenda as an example) The former is the basis of any research. Surely you can tell you the difference between the two? Or even where getting permission to get permission to get permission, etc., etc., falls into? -- Denevir (talk) 21:33, May 1, 2017 (UTC) ***** First off thanks for adding more context. I kind of imagined it was like this which is why I support you still. Here is what I am implying: The former argument form can significantly reduce or even completely remove the latter argument form. If you create a set of criteria that explains why you make your changes that is thoroughly permeated with sound and valid deductive reasoning, you can use it to completely close out the latter form of an argument. I know it gets to a level where an edit war can occur, but in your criteria you can even display what can be considered vandalism. This would allow you to appropriately deal with cases where people are being uncooperative. I know you like to use logic and reasoning over anything, but come on now. You must already know that the most important part of logic and reasoning is foundation. 21:25, May 1, 2017 (UTC) ****** No probs man, and you are most correct: there is only one Tenochtitlan built on only one swamp, after all (that I'm aware of, at least - Mexico City being built on top of the bloodstained ruins notwithstanding) -- Denevir (talk) 21:33, May 1, 2017 (UTC) ******* To help you get started, I started creating a small document of criteria for your foundation to address things I have currently seen you handle. Feel free to add to this and have other administrators, bureaucrats review this, like Ninjamask for example. 19:48, May 2, 2017 (UTC) ******** O_O thanks -- Denevir (talk) 07:00, May 5, 2017 (UTC) Closing Statement * Nomination fails, 5 in support, 4 opposed, 4 neutral. 23:01, May 17, 2017 (UTC) Category:Inactive rights requests